Download A Comparative Study of Xiang Yu and Hannibal`s Strategic

African Nebula, Issue 4, September 2011
A Comparative Study of Xiang Yu and Hannibal's Strategic Thinking with
that of Shaka the Zulu of South Africa
Zhe Zhang and Omon Osiki
Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing
China
Abstract
The name of Ji Xiang Yu occupies an important place in the history of strategic
thinking in Chinese history. His rise into limelight was occasioned by the opportunity
provided by the decline in the political fortunes of the Late Qin Dynasty. Like Xiang
Yu, Hannibal Baca, the famous North African military strategist was brought up to
accept strict and hard military discipline. He was excellent in military and diplomatic
activities and helped to build a formidable force that could hold its own in the then
Mediterranean World. Several centuries after the exploits of these two great
strategists, Africa south of the Sahara produced a military strategist of world acclaim.
Shaka the Zulu was as shrewd and militarily strategic as both Xiang Yu and Hannibal
to merit a place in the annals of the “fathers of strategic thinking”. This work
analyzes the historical forces that shaped the strategic thinking of these historical
figures and discusses their tremendous contributions to the development of military
science and history.
Keywords: Xiang Yu, Hannibal, Shaka, Strategic Thinking
Introduction
About the 3rd century BC, both the East (Asia) and West (Europe) were active on the
stage of numerous wars that produced two outstanding heroes who changed the
direction of warfare and strategic studies. The Chinese people are familiar with the
king of Western Chu, Xiang Yu (BC 232 BC - 202 BC) who contributed to the
military and political development of the area. In 208 BC, the anti-Qin rebellion led
by Yijun gradually broke the defense of the Chu commander Xiang Liang, who died
afterwards. Thereafter, the fortune of the Qin state hit the rocks. At this critical
moment, Xiang Yu rose to the occasion and turned the tide of the Chu State. He led
his troops in the Julu area and defeated the invaders of the Qin State in 207 BC. This
act of bravery was the main indelible contribution of Xiang Yu to the evolution of the
Chinese political system. At the same time in North Africa, ancient Carthage produced
the famous military strategist, Hannibal, in about 247 BC. These two heroes not only
lived in the same era, coincidentally, the fate of their history and the trajectory of the
wars they fought were very similar in both the way they organized their armies and
how they deployed them in battlefields. Thus, both men are sometimes referred to as
“masters of strategic thinking” (Yan, 1992: 20).
But the third character in this analysis, Shaka the Zulu was successful all the way until
his death caused by his bodyguard and his half brothers. Although there is no
evidence to indicate that Shaka ever read the lessons of strategy from the examples of
77
African Nebula, Issue 4, September 2011
Xiang Yu and Hannibal, his military innovations and tactics survived long after he left
the scene. He is credited with creating the first professional standing army in southern
Africa, because before him there was no strict division between those who fought in the
wars and ordinary citizens. The military and strategic exploits of Shaka had some
striking similarities and differences with to those of Xiang Yu and Hannibal.
The Concept of Warfare
Although war may have been dreaded by many, the reality is that history is replete
with numerous communal, national and international violent conflicts and
confrontations, with a heavy toll on lives and material resources. In fact, warfare is an
aspect of the evolution of settled communities and the history of the human struggle
for control of resources in their environment (Goyne, 2002: 31). People and
communities fight wars for numerous reasons, including economic, political, social,
religious, cultural and strategic considerations, among other factors. Military
historians and other analysts have opined that methods of war stand on a scale
between maneuver warfare and attrition, both of which are essentially the focus on
achieving victory through defeating, killing or capturing an adversary. Although there
are technical differences between the two, in reality maneuver warfare involves both
maneuver and attrition (Simpkin, 2000: 3-16, 139-186; Leonhard, 1991: 1-5; Lind,
1985: 3-7). However, a key requirement for success in maneuver warfare on the part
of the country or group executing the war is accurate, up-to-date intelligence on the
disposition of key command, support and combat units (Leonhard, 1991). War
theorists and strategists such as Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz (1780-1831),
Antoine-Henri, baron Jomini (1779-1869), Sun Wu or Sun Tzu (c. 544 B.C.-496 B.C.),
Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), Xiang Yu, Hannibal and Shaka, among others were
aware of these facts (Gray, 1991: 85-91). The last three military strategists occupy a
central position in this paper.
The Battle of Julu provides an insight into the strategic thinking of Xiang Yu, who
was an ancient Chinese strategic thinker and military commander. In that battle, Xiang
Yu’s forces carried out unprecedented attacks against the forces of the Qin Dynasty
Emperor (221 B.C.-207 B.C). For an extremely ambitious youth of barely 24 years
old, that feat by Xiang Yu was unprecedented in the history of warfare in China.
Along with his uncle, Xiang Liang, Xiang Yu commanded a number of peasant armies
against the Qin Dynasty Emperor, Chen Sheng. He believed in accurate, up-to-date
intelligence, reliance on and the mobilization of local peasants and adequate
preparations, coupled with surprise attacks in defeating the adversary.
Like Xiang Yu, Hannibal understood the importance of accurate, up-to-date
intelligence and surprise attacks on the adversary as indispensable parts of warfare.
He demonstrated this in most of his battles, including the Battle of Cannae (Liddell
Hart, 1967). Though, Shaka lived several centuries after both Hannibal and Xiang Yu,
but his approach to warfare bore some similarities with the approaches of the former.
He is perceived as a heroic and protean nation-builder, whose activities helped to
shape the politico-military configuration of southern Africa in the nineteenth century
78
African Nebula, Issue 4, September 2011
and thereafter (Chanaiwa, Dec. 1980: 1-20). The experience of growing up without a
biological father and the humiliation and cruel treatment he received from his mates
probably shaped the warlike character of Shaka. He believed in accurate, up-to-date
intelligence, surprise attacks and total annihilation, which earned him the nickname
Nodumehlezi (“the one who when seated causes the earth to rumble”) (Chanaiwa, Dec.
1980: 1-20). Like both Hannibal and Xiang Yu, he emphasized merit over family
background as the easiest way to motivate his soldiers, most of whom were recruited
from among the peasants. His association with his military godfather, Dingiswayo
under whose leadership he gained most of his military experience was instrumental to
the formation of his military regiments. In fact, at the death of Shaka’s father (c. 1816),
Dingiswayo lent him the military support necessary to oust and assassinate his senior
brother Sigujana, and make himself chieftain of the Zulu. At Dingiswayo’s death in
c.1818, Shaka immediately assumed leadership, added the forces to his own and
conquered the surrounding chiefdoms, thus uniting more than a hundred chiefdoms in
southern Africa.
Basic Strategic Maneuverings of Xiang Yu, Hannibal and Shaka
Xiang Yu’s strategic maneuverings manifested during the conflict between the Han
Chinese and the rulers of the Qin Dynasty. The Qin dynasty was mainly composed of
a group of linguistically related ethnic minorities in southwest China. The Qin State
became strong during the Warring States after it successfully implemented political
and economic reforms that enabled it to dislodge the other states, including Han, Zhao,
Wei, Yan, and Chu to form the first unified multi-ethnic China. In order to consolidate
power, the Qin leaders carried out harsh political, economic and cultural reforms, which
later provided the impetus for the challenge of the regime by the Han Chinese. For
instance, the people resented the Qin’s tyranny, endless military service, heavy hard
labour and taxes such as the construction of many palaces, and severe punishment. This
caused peasant uprising, but the most successful one was led by Xiang Yu.
After the initial success, Xiang Yu had to act decisively to establish the Han Dynasty.
However, Xiang Yu faced all kinds of unfavorable conditions at the Battle of Julu.
First, the opponent’s strength was unusually strong. Indeed, Xiang Yu faced hundreds
of thousands of elite regular army of the Qin Dynasty, as well as some of the most
famous generals of the Qin. Second, the strength of Xiang Yu’s own army was
extremely weak. His army constituted a complex but weak force. Although his army
numbered between 50,000 and 60,000, their combat effectiveness in general was
difficult and poor to command. Third, the army faced fatigue due to the distance of
the battle front. In essence, Xiang Yu was more or less fighting in a “foreign land”. It
took his army three months to reach Julu and so there was fatigue on the part of the
army. Fourth, his allies were wary of war and marched cautiously in order to preserve
their strength. The brightest of them, the prince of the army did not mobilize the full
force of his army.
Faced with such a perilous situation, Xiang Yu had to act decisively to capture the
weakness of the Qin and dislodge the Qin layout. He decided to implement the Black
Tiger tactics by cutting off the contact lines of the two allies of the Qin. He
concentrated on a possible win and advised the Po general to bring 20,000 troops to
cross the river to attack the Qin corridor. The general lived up to his expectations and
defeated the guard corridor of the Qin army. Xiang Yu then took advantage of the
79
African Nebula, Issue 4, September 2011
situation, seized the opportunity and attacked the Qin army. Furthermore, he led his
forces to cross the river and gave a speech to boost the morale of his troops. Chinese
historians believe that Xiang Yu was very clever in the art of warfare. He wrecked all
ships that approached him and burnt farmhouses (Si, 1959:307). In essence, he
effectively combined the Black Tiger tactics with the scorched earth strategy, also
used by Shaka several centuries later. That battle fully demonstrated the determination
and indomitable spirit of Xiang Yu.
Thereafter, Xiang Yu was confident of victory, and how to attack the main corridor of
the Qin Dynasty became his major focus. When Zhang of the Qin Dynasty heard the
news, he immediately took his army to the corridor to wait for Xiang Yu at the
entrance to the kingdom, but Zhang’s army was defeated. Records of the historian,
Zhang Er Chen reports that: “The army of Xiang Yu attacked Zhang’s corridor. The
king and the army lacked food, but Xiang Yu learned that the ability to lead his troops
to cross the river would break Zhang” (Si, 1959:307). Indeed, Xiang Yu repelled
Zhang’s army and immediately killed them. He made the necessary tactical
deployment, and interspersed with the scattered Qin army. The leaders of the other
states earlier conquered by the Qin Dynasty immediately joined with Xiang Yu to
build on this effort. In the end, Xiang Yu prevailed and won the war. He was later
defeated and forced to commit suicide.
A different but related strategy was employed by Hannibal Baca in projecting and
defending the military might of ancient Carthage. When Hasdrubal was assassinated
in 221 BC by the Celtics (Celts), Hannibal took over military power and was formally
appointed to the government of Carthage. He sent troops to capture the Spanish city
of Sagunto, thus marking the beginning of the Second Punic War. Although Hannibal
used the scorched earth strategy to weaken the enemy, his most important strategic
thinking was to dare external enemies of his territory by deploying the strategy of
surprise attack (Ayrault-Dodge, 1995). With the help of infantry and cavalry, he often
used the strategy of joint attacks made up of ambush and surprise attacks (Cottrell,
1965; Yang Jun-ming, 1993: 5). This clever use of cavalry to ambush opponents stood
Hannibal out among ancient military strategists. At the Battle of Lake, Hannibal
cleverly employed this strategy. He led his army to attack the Italian peninsula by
taking the war to the enemy’s territory. In order to avoid anti-Hannibal sentiments in
his anticipated attack against the city of Rome, Hannibal tried not to attack the
common people and unarmed peasants, but Rome sent the newly appointed consuls
Gaius Flaminius to station their troops in the two war-fronts leading to the main city
of Rome.
Hannibal encountered great difficulties crossing the Arno River because of swamp
and other climatic and geographical problems. In spring the melting snow ensured
that the Arno River flooded the path that Hannibal intended to take. Indeed, this was
like a poisonous gas that filled the air, filling the dangerous road with death. Therefore,
the shortest path, but also the most combat-prone path, was to face the Roman legion
along their line of formation. This caused his army much fatigue owing to lack of
sleep because they marched through the swamp and crossed it after four days and
three nights. He also crossed the Apennines, but unlike in the case of the Arno River,
80
African Nebula, Issue 4, September 2011
he encountered less difficulty. When he passed through the marshland, Gaius
Flaminius was shocked because he had no idea that Hannibal could lead Carthaginian
army along that path so soon in his left-wing.
When Hannibal had arrived Etruscans (Etruria), he decided to lure Gaius Flaminius in
battle with him by deliberately wreaking havoc around the farmland estate. He opened
his army to the left of the Roman army to cut off the road leading to the city of Rome.
He also decided to march toward Apulia expecting Gaius Flaminius to come along.
Thereafter he retreated to Lake Trasimeno where Gaius Flaminius sent troops to
ambush him under the setting of the northern shore of Lake Trasimeno. Lake
Trasimeno was surrounded by mountains and the landscape was a narrow path leading
to the valley from west to east. By night, Hannibal used his cavalry formation to
ambush Gaius Flaminius in the lane at the entrance to the mountain. The light infantry
configuration was placed in the steep hill at the exit of the eastern end of the valley
(De Beer, 1974).
Thereafter, Hannibal led the remaining troops to attack the Roman front. The next
morning, the Roman army entered the narrow mountain pass. Gaius Flaminius led the
Roman army to the column through the narrow channel of the lake. Hannibal
immediately attacked and caught the Romans unaware. The Roman army was taken
off guard and was suddenly in confusion. With the violent attacks carried out by the
Carthaginians, Roman soldiers were killed, even though the fighting only lasted a few
hours (Michael Grant, 1990: 99). Hannibal with his military genius and a flexible
strategy and tactics brought victory to the Carthaginians. This campaign marked a
turning point in the history of war and ambush strategy in the Western world
(Ayrault-Dodge, 1995; Zhang Xiao-xiao, 1992, 5).
Hannibal’s approach to the strategy of surprise and attack was slightly different from
that of Shaka. Shaka demonstrated this strategy of surprise and attack during his first
major battle with Zwide of the Ndwandwe after the death of Dingiswayo and his
emergence as the leader of the combined forces of the Mthethwa and the Zulu clan.
Zwide had plotted to defeat Shaka. He moved all his army into Zululand in April 1818.
Shaka wore out the invaders by pretending he was retreating. He drew Zwide’s forces
deep into his own territory and successfully exhausted them. He then flung his own
regiments on them and defeated them conclusively at the Mhlathuze River. In 1826,
under Zwide’s successor, Sikhunyane, the Ndwandwe again fought the Zulu, but were
totally routed forcing the majority of them to submit to Shaka. Shaka was able to recruit
additional warriors from among them and proceeded to train them in his own methods
of close combat. During his brief reign, his regiments continuously went on campaign,
steadily extending their assaults further afield (Omer-Cooper, 1965: 12–15).
Shaka introduced new military tactics, by arming his warriors with short-handled
stabbing spears and trained them to move up to their opponents in a close formation
with their body-length cowhide shields forming an almost impenetrable barrier to
spears thrown at them. Although the throwing spear was not discarded, it only served
as an initial missile weapon before close contacts with the enemy were made and the
shorter stabbing spear was used in hand to hand combat (Hamilton, 1998: 5-34). The
81
African Nebula, Issue 4, September 2011
crescent-shaped formation was highly favoured and a number of regiments extending
several ranks deep formed a dense body known as the chest, while on each side a
regiment moved forward forming the horns. The main purpose of the horns formation
(or the bull horn formation) was to make it curve inward around the enemy so that the
main body would advance killing all those who could not break through the
encompassing lines.
The whole military arrangement was generally partitioned into three levels: regiments,
corps of several regiments, and “armies” or bigger formations. With this tactics in
place, Shaka’s war cry was “victory or death” (Guttman, 2008: 23). He taught the Zulus
that the most effective way of becoming powerful quickly was by conquering and
controlling other tribes. This motivated the social outlook of the Zulu people and
helped to build a “warrior” mindset in them, which Shaka turned to his advantage.
Organization, Mobilization and Defence Plans
Efficient organization, mobilization and defence plans are essential in the success of
armies and the three strategists examined in this work were aware and conscious of
their importance in military strategies. When Xiang Yu was faced with a sinister
political and military environment, he adopted the option of developing the idea of a
bold strategic plan. He concluded that he needed large forces to fight the army of the
Qin emperor. The commander of the army of the Qin, Liu Bang was encouraged by
the mobility of his cavalry. He led thirty thousand (30,000) elite troops to reach
Pengcheng southwest of Xiaoxian. At this point, most of his coalition was to attack
Pengcheng by deploying defense systems in the north of the city. Xiang Yu chose the
opportunity to launch a surprise attack in the morning during the cover of night.
Xiang Yu was outstanding in this regard and his tactical early morning raids on the
enemy fully demonstrated his superb strategy of mobilization and artistic prowess,
although he faced some unprecedented crises.
First, Xiang Yu had to face two fronts. First, the Qin Dynasty was not yet put down.
Second, there was a great disparity in forces between the two armies in favour of the
Qin Dynasty, which had a total strength of about 16 million people, an unprecedented
grand scale, while Xiang Yu’s full strength at this time was numbered far less than
560,000 (Zhang Xiao-xiao, 1992: 6-8). Third, the political foundation of the Chu state
(which was part of the coalition led by Xiang Yu) was weak. The Qin’s coalition
waited at the fortifications to resist the return of the Chu army. Fourth, Xiang Yu’s
allies betrayed him and forced the political environment into the situation of extreme
isolation.
It is instructive that Xiang Yu preferred to raid Liu Bang’s command center instead of
the outposts, resulting in paralysis of Liu Bang’s coalition command system. The
Pengcheng war became a one-sided situation (Si Ma-qian, 1959: 321). The death toll
of Liu Bang’s soldiers far outweighed that of Xiang Yu (Li Wei-tai, 2011:312).
82
African Nebula, Issue 4, September 2011
Hannibal experienced a similar victorious and well coordinated battle in 216 B.C. He
led about 40,000 infantry and a thousand cavalry from northern Apulia, south to
promote pre-emptive capture of the Romans’ supply powerhouse, Canny (Cannae) to
cut off the food supply of Rome. The development forced the Roman Senate to elect
two new consuls: Sterling Gaius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paullus with the
express directives to mobilize the huge historical might of the Roman Republic in
support of coalition forces in order to completely eliminate Hannibal. The two consuls
marched immediately to Cannae to face the Carthaginian army. In August 2, 216 B.C.,
the battle in Cannae started. Rome put a full strength of infantry numbering about
eighty thousand (80,000) and six thousand (6,000) cavalry to face the Carthaginian
military, which had invested forty thousand (40,000) footmen and 14,000 cavalry.
Hannibal himself commanded the center all the way, while his nephew, Hanno
commanded the right-wing (Michael Grant, 1990: 88-99). Hannibal’s brother, Mage
commanded the left wing. Three thousand (3,000) cavalry of Hannibal’s army was
also selected as a reserve force. Hannibal also designed an arrangement to make five
hundred (500) lightly armed soldiers carry spears, shield and dagger to carry out the
task of fake surrender, a strategy also used by Shaka centuries later.
Moreover, in that war, Hannibal used his world-famous crescent tactics, which was
like a convex toward the enemy. The infantry was deployed in the center to weaken
the army of the opponent while the two wings were manned by powerful cavalry
(Liddell, 1967: 12-34; Yu, 1988: 96). When the fighting began, the Roman army
encountered a strong opposition from the Carthaginian side. They had to temporarily
change strategy, narrowing the front, increasing depth, to strengthen the power of the
central square, in an attempt to defeat Hannibal’s central square in one fell swoop.
It was important for Hannibal to understand the weather of Cannae because it was a
major factor in the battle. For instance, at noon a strong southeast wind was blowing
and the south-east of the Roman infantry was blown by the wind with great
consequences on their sight because they could not easily open their eyes. As a result
of this, the wind greatly enhanced the killing effect. Suddenly, the Roman soldiers
were faced with chaos. Hannibal’s army attacked with various weapons such as spears,
archery, slings and so on. Consequently, the Carthaginian army formation into a
crescent depression surrounded by the Roman main force was impressive. Hannibal
also ordered the left-right step, riding with the attack from both wings surrounded by
enemies. Further, he quickly defeated the heavy cavalry of the left-wing right-wing
cavalry of the Roman army, and then divided his own forces toward the lateral of the
Roman army left wing cavalry. The Roman army’s left wing cavalry stood up before
and after the attack, and quickly fled. At the same time, five hundred (500)
Carthaginian prisoners of war also took the opportunity to pull out their daggers to
attack. The Romans were thrown into a battle chaos, while the Carthaginian cavalry
fled in pursuit of the enemy cavalry and other troops with the infantry encircling the
Roman infantry (Ayrault-Dodge, 1995; Ren, 1962: 94). This was to become the most
painful defeat in Roman history. It is also one of history’s most severe battle
83
African Nebula, Issue 4, September 2011
casualties in a single battle. Thereafter, the Romans of the post-Cannae war worked
hard to reintroduce the Fabian strategy in order to avoid a decisive battle of the
magnitude of the Cannae Battle.
Most of Shaka’s successes rested on the mobility of his army, his ability to organize the
forces and to close in on the opponents when they were less prepared. By means of
much drilling and discipline, he built up his forces, which soon became the terror of the
land. For example, he is said to have prohibited the wearing of sandals, but toughened
his warriors’ feet by making them run barefoot over rough thorny ground and in so
doing secured their greater mobility. Although this record may have been over
exaggerated, it nevertheless indicates the level of discipline and training that Shaka
subjected his army to. In this connection, unlike both Xiang Yu and Hannibal, Shaka
ensured that the young men were taken away to be enrolled alongside others from all
sections of the kingdom in an appropriate age-regiment. This strategy produced a sense
of common identity among the fighters. Similarly, a female age-regiment was also
organized. Members took part in ceremonial dancing and displays. They were given
permission to marry members of the male regiments when it was necessary (Chanaiwa,
Dec. 1980: 1-20). This combination of male and female regiments to balance the
gender structure of his army separated Shaka from both Xiang Yu and Hannibal.
Moreover, Xiang Yu, Hannibal and Shaka developed a strong strategic
decision-making structure and a high level of meticulous planning. They understood
the techniques and flexibility in the use of military experience to bring about the fall
of opponents. They all employed bold and surprise moves to achieve the desired
strategic objectives. In addition, they took full account of the use of terrain and
weather characteristics, although the later applied more to Xiang Yu and Hannibal.
Specifically, both Xiang Yu and Shaka made use of early morning attacks against their
adversaries, while Hannibal capitalized on the southeast strong winds to decimate the
rank of the Roman army.
The Strategic Thinking of Xiang Yu, Hannibal and Shaka: Some Comparative
Notes
From the various wars analyzed above, we can make the following observations: First,
the Battle of Julu and the Battle of Lake Trasimeno were both successful warfare and
attacking ventures because of the unique strategies and tactics deployed by both
Xiang Yu and Hannibal. Specifically, Xiang Yu and Hannibal demonstrated
extraordinary courage in their ability to plan surprise attacks against the enemy’s
hinterland. Secondly, the two battles revealed excellent use of raids, maneuvering and
secret attacks beyond the enemy’s imagination. Again, at the two battles, both Xiang
Yu and Hannibal demonstrated superior battlefield commanding ability and were both
good at capturing the insight and long-lasting endurance of the fighters. They both led
the armored cavalry and motivated the infantry division to carry out their order and
command successfully.
84
African Nebula, Issue 4, September 2011
In the same vein, Shaka deployed unique strategies and tactics in the execution of his
battles. Like both Xiang Yu and Hannibal, he made excellent use of raids, secret
attacks and maneuvering. He also deployed the scorched earth policy to devastate the
enemy camps, and his armies raided their targets in the process. In the course of time,
raiding and collection of booties became part of the whole military arrangement of
Shaka. He encouraged looting, which was part of his military victory and celebration.
Like in ancient times, Shaka’s spoils of war included the defeated populations, which
were often enslaved, and the women and children, who were often absorbed into his
army.
In another sense, both the Pengcheng Battle and the Battle of Cannae represented
great moments in the history of world’s military encirclement. They both destroyed
the enemy’s well-arranged plans and designs. The battlefield and the choice of tactics,
the excellent riding techniques, the use of the infantry, and the collaborative combat
and other aspects of the battles can be called the masterpiece of the history of warfare.
These two battles show that Xiang Yu and Hannibal were excellent commanders of
war and masters of the art of warfare and strategic thinking. At the Battle of Cannae,
for instance, Hannibal used the “encirclement strategy” and wiped out the enemy. In
contrast, Shaka developed a new strategy of military encirclement. He had seen that
the traditional type of spear, a long-handled known as assegai thrown from a distance,
was not the best for the regulated fighting in close formation he introduced and
therefore replaced it with iklwa, a short stabbing spear with a long, sword-like
spearhead. It is possible that Shaka inherited this idea from his mentor, Dingiswayo, but
it was refined by him (Shaka) and developed into an enduring pre-colonial traditional
military strategy. His army usually deployed the crescent tactics by gradually
encircling the adversary. That way it was difficult for the enemy to escape.
In specific instances, we can argue that Shaka was closer to Hannibal than to Xiang
Yu in the use of a combination of warfare and diplomacy. For instance, even though
Shaka’s hegemony was primarily based on military might, he supplemented this with
a mixture of diplomacy and patronage. He incorporated friendly chieftains such as
Jobe of the Sithole, Zihlandlo of the Mkhize, and Mathubane of the Thuli. He did not
wage heavy war against them, but won them over by subtler tactics, such as patronage
and reward. In the same vein, Hannibal employed diplomacy in his dealings with
some powers in the Mediterranean world. He believed that commanders would do
well to be shrewd in both war and politics as they must use diplomacy and cunning to
appease and satisfy their political leaders. He demonstrated this during the Punic War
when he cultivated key alliances with Gaul and Syracuse. In contrast, Xiang Yu relied
on the peasants for his warfare, but in some instances, he needed to court the
relationship of the other minor groups in China in his battles with the Qin rulers.
Both Shaka and Hannibal also shared the military ingenuity of deploying elephants at
crucial moments of the campaigns. While Shaka was fighting Zwide of the
Ndwandwe, at the Battle of Gqokli Hill, he sealed his victory by sending elephants in
85
African Nebula, Issue 4, September 2011
a sweep around the hill to attack the enemy’s rear. The same tactics was deployed by
Hannibal in several of his battles, but there is no evidence that Xiang Yu made use of
the same tactics. Instead, the latter used the impact of force of cavalry to break up the
enemy’s stronghold.
Conclusion
It is fascinating how Xiang Yu, Hannibal and Shaka shared remarkable military
ingenuity in the prosecution of their respective battles, even though there is no evidence
that they had any knowledge of one another. The three military strategists employed the
strategy of fast-moving surprise attacks and ambushes, the use of crescent tactics to
encircle the opponents, and use of knowledge of military planning and logistic. In this
connection, Shaka turned warfare in the area of Southern Africa from a ritualized
exercise into a true method of subjugation and wholesale slaughter. He also turned
warfare into a professional endeavour. He shared this reputation with Hannibal, who
lived all his life either fighting or thinking about how to fight and overrun the
adversaries. In contrast, Xiang Yu simply reacted to the event of the moment. His
mission was to overthrow the Qin Dynasty and replace it with the rule of Han
Chinese.
Moreover, Shaka’s “buffalo horns” attack formation that involved surrounding and
annihilating enemy forces can be likened to that of Hannibal’s crescent formation and
the Roman legionaries’ use of gladius and scutum (Guttman, 2008: 23), as well as the
encirclement tactics used by Xiang Yu at the Pengcheng Battle. There is no evidence
that Shaka copied the tactics from either the Romans, the Carthaginians or from Xiang
Yu. What this implies is that the genius in the three leaders was obvious in the way
they managed their forces into an organism to achieve victory for them. In that
connection, Hannibal’s genius is unanimously affirmed by both ancient and modern
historians. The Greek historian Polybius paid him tribute saying:
Who can help admire this man’s skillful generalship, his
courage, his ability; ... he kept vast numbers under control like a
good pilot, without any sign of dissatisfaction towards himself
or friction amongst themselves. And the troops under his
command, so far from being of the same tribe, were of many
diverse races who had neither laws nor customs nor language in
common (Howe and Howe, 1987: 219).
The same ability to mobilize people from different clans was exhibited by both Shaka
and Xiang Yu in building their armies. Hannibal is also seen as setting a model of
military art (Niu, 2003: 170; Ralph, 1987: 297), in the same way as both Shaka and
Xiang Yu introduced unprecedented innovations in their military planning and
executions. To this end, both Shaka and Xiang Yu have been called military geniuses
for their reforms and innovations in military science and their understanding of a need
for efficient organizational machineries in warfare (Omar-Cooper, 1965: 12-86; Wang
86
African Nebula, Issue 4, September 2011
Zuan-zhong and Wang Min, 2009: 7-8).
Unfortunately, both Xiang Yu and Hannibal had a strikingly similar tragic fate. Both
men were forced to commit suicide when they were defeated by their opponents.
Hannibal committed suicide when the Roman authorities attempted to extradite him in
183 B.C. Similarly, Xiang Yu committed suicide to avoid being captured by enemy
forces (Wang Zuan-zhong and Wang Min, 2009:9). On the other hand, Shaka was
murdered by his half-brothers and body-guard for what they perceived as his
high-handedness, brutality and cruelty. In a nutshell, the three men ended their
military careers tragically, just as their contributions to strategic thinking and military
science have been spectacular.
Works Cited
Ayrault-Dodge, Theodore (1995), Hannibal: A History of the Art of War among the
Carthaginians and Romans Down to the Battle of Pydna, 168 B.C., Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Da Capo Press.
Chanaiwa, David Shingirai (Dec. 1980), “The Zulu Revolution: State Formation in a
Pastoralist Society,” African Studies Review, 23(3), 1-20.
Cottrell, Leonard (1965), Enemy of Rome, London: Evans Bros.
De Beer, Sir G. (1974), Hannibal: the Struggle for Power in the Mediterranean,
London: Thames and Hudson.
Grant, Michael (1990), “History of Rome”, (Shi Liao Tao Translation), Beijing:
International Culture Publishing Company.
Gray, Colin S. (1999), Modern Strategy, Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.
Goyne, David (2002), “Book Review: Grant T. Hammond, the Mind of War: John
Boyd and American Security, Smithson Institute Press, Washington”, A Journal of
Battlefield Technology, vol.5, No.3.
Guttman, Jon (2008), Military History, Vol. 24 Issue 4.
Hamilton, Carolyn (1998), Terrific Majesty: the Powers of Shaka Zulu and the
Limits of Historical Invention, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Howe, Helen and Howe, Robert (1987), Ancient and Medieval Worlds, New York:
Longman.
Leonhard, Robert (1991), The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver-Warfare Theory and
Air-Land Battle, Novato, CA: Presidio Press.
Li, Wei-tai (2011), Xiang Yu Qin Policy’s Review, Nanjing: Phoenix Pub. House.
Liddell Hart, B. H. (1967), Strategy, New York City, New York: Penguin Group.
Lind, William S. (1985), Westview Special Studies in Military Affairs, Westview Press
Inc. Boulder, CO.
Niu, Xian-zhong (2003), History and Strategy of Western Military History, Guangxi
Normal University Ralph Lerner Burns.
Omer-Cooper, J. D. (1965), The Zulu Aftermath, London: Longman.
Ralph, Lerner Burns (1987), History of World Civilization, Beijing: The Commercial
Press.
Ren, Bing-xiang (translat) (1962), Roman Republic (1), Beijing: Commercial Press.
Si, Ma-qian (1959), “Xiang Yu Ji”, Historical Records, Volume 7, Beijing: Zhonghua
Press.
Si, Ma-qian (1959), “Zhang Er Chen remaining Biography” Historical Records,
87
African Nebula, Issue 4, September 2011
Volume 89, Beijing: Zhonghua Press.
Simpkin, Richard E. (2000), Race to the Swift: Thoughts on Twenty-First Century
Warfare, London: Brassey’s Defence.
Wang, Zuan-zhong and Wang, Min (2009), “The Father of Hannibal in the Test
Classification Strategy to enter the Apennine Strategic Thinking”, The Modern
Weapons, (vol. 9).
Yang, Jun-ming (1993), “Hannibal is an outstanding military strategist”, Journal of
Social Sciences, Hunan Normal University.
Yan, Zhu (ed.) (1992), Introduction to Military Strategy, Beijing: China Social
Sciences Press.
Yu, Gui-xin (1988), Ancient Roman History, Jilin University Press.
Zhang, Xiao-xiao (1992), “The Father of Strategy-Hannibal”, Military History, vol.
5).
88